Donald R. Henry v. San Francisco Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD R. HENRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17362
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01624-JSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 16, 2016***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Donald R. Henry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest. We review de novo
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-17362
the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Henry’s action because Henry failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that he was arrested without probable cause. See id.
at 918 (“To maintain an action for false arrest, [plaintiff] must plead facts that
would show [defendant ordered] or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests
were without probable cause”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henry further leave
to amend. See Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir.
1989) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend need not
be granted where amendment would be futile; “[t]he district court’s discretion to
deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended
the complaint”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --